Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Prakash Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 300 of 2012
Decided On : 01-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sheetal Vyas
For the Respondent: Ajit Sharma

Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accused based on distinct roles.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence of four months simple imprisonment for voluntarily causing hurt - Trial court convicted appellant alone, acquitting co-accused of graver charges holding only first incident proved - Appeal contending improbability of incident over demand for glasses, non-identification of weapon, same evidence used for conviction and acquittal, interested and contradictory witnesses - Principles: Partial contradiction impeaches credit only to extent contradicted, rest reliable (Para 15, citing Sat Paul); defective investigation or non-recovery of weapon not fatal, accused not to benefit (Paras 18-22, citing Karnel Singh, Sachin Kumar); hostile witness testimony acceptable if corroborated for supported parts (Para 26, citing Selvamani); separate incidents and distinct roles justify differential treatment (Para 34). (Paras 1-37)

(B) Witnesses - Credibility - Confrontation with prior statement discredits only impugned part, not wholly; eyewitness reliable despite not knowing weapon source (Paras 14-17, 24-25).

(C) Investigation - Lapses like delayed FIR after hospital intimation or non-examination of witness not to prejudice prosecution (Paras 31-32).

Facts of the case:
Injured consumed liquor, went to premises for glasses, verbal altercation ensued with appellant who inflicted stick blow on shoulder; eyewitness separated them; trial court held first incident proved, second doubtful, convicted appellant under Section 323, acquitted others.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution version for first incident duly proved by victim, eyewitness and medical evidence; conviction and sentence proper, no interference warranted.

Issues: Sustainability of conviction despite improbability plea, weapon non-identification/recovery, witness contradictions/hostility, differential treatment of accused, defective investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Incident probable due to altercation; victim's denial of quarrel discredited by prior statement, eyewitness reliable; medical injury matches first incident; lapses in investigation irrelevant; first and second incidents distinct, appellant's role limited to first. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. trial court convicted appellant solely for initial simple hurt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on improbability, evidence consistency, accused roles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. eyewitnesses establish altercation leading to shoulder stick blow. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. partial contradiction impeaches only specific testimony portion. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. defective investigation, weapon non-recovery not fatal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. corroborated hostile witness parts remain usable. (Para 26 , 27)
7. medical evidence corroborates described shoulder injury. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. fir delay excused by victim's medical unfitness. (Para 31)
9. section 313 denial not substantive defense evidence. (Para 32 , 33)
10. separate incidents permit selective accused convictions. (Para 34 , 35)
11. appeal dismissed; conviction, sentence upheld. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 341, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the victim, Kuldeep Singh (PW1), had gone to Kharapathar, Chunjar, on 24.10.2007. He and Rai Singh, accused (since acquitted), consumed liquor. They met Prakash (the accused/appellant) Govinder, the accused (since acquitted) and Ajvinder on the way. Kuldeep Kumar went to the house of Pappu to demand glasses. However, he refused. The victim reached the house of Govinder, where Prakash inflicted a blow by means of a sharp-edged weapon on the victim. Rai Singh also quarrelled with the victim and inflicted injuries on him. Jitender Singh (PW9) picked him up and carried him to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry No. 15 (Ext.PW4/A) and sent HC Pyare Lal (not examined) to verify the correctness of the information. HC Pyare Lal filed an application (Ext.PW6/B) seeking the opinion of the Medical Officer about the fitness of the victim to make the statement. Dr Sanjeev Gupta (PW6) certified that the injured was not fit to make the statement. Pradeep Kumar (PW2) visited the Police Station and lodged an FIR (Ext.PW2/A). Inspector Lal Man (PW11) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW11/A). He found hair and blood- stained pieces of wood. He put them in separate cloth parcels and seized them vide memo (Ext.PW2/B). Accused Krishan Chand produced a Kassi. The other accused produced the sticks. These were seized vide memos (Ext.PW5/A to Ext.PW5/D). Dr Sanjeev Gupta (PW6) examined the injured/victim and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He referred the patient to IGMC Shimla for surgery and further management. The CT scan of the head showed a fracture of the right occipital bone. The nature of the injury was stated to be grievous, which was dangerous to life and could have been caused within 24 hours of the examination. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW6/A). The case property was sent to the SFSL, and a report (Ext.PW11/D) was issued mentioning that blood was detected in traces on hair lifted from the spot, but it was insufficient for further examination. Human blood of group (A) was detected on blood stained wooden piece, pants, t-shirt and sweater of the victim. Human blood was detected on the scar